Warren Buffet, an ardent supporter of Barack Obama, has been leading the charge for financial regulations. He coined the phrase “financial weapons of mass destruction” popularized even more by Obama repeating it.

Now Obama is pushing for a financial regulation bill, the key feature of which would be to require companies holding financial derivatives put aside large sums to cover potential losses.

It turns out that Berkshire, Buffet’s company, has a $63 billion derivatives portfolio. If the bill passes as it is, it’ll hit Buffet badly. So he’s lobbying anxiously for a provision excluding Berkshire.

Now, I am against any financial regulations. But if it passes without Buffet’s provision, don’t you think it’ll give some evidence of God’s existence?

Disagree? What about the existence of poetic justice?

> 4,000  US Troops dead
> 30,000 wounded
> 30% develop serious mental health problems
> $ 1 trillion spent
> 600,000 Iraqi civilians killed
> 2 milliom Iraqi displaced inside Iraq
> 2 million Itaqi Refugees in Syria and Jordan
> 40% professiohnals left Iraq

Why did we do it? For Iraqis? They didn’t want us there.
> 80% Iraqis “strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops”

Why are we still there, then? To achieve victory.
How do we define a victory in Iraq? This is a question to Bush, Obama, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Really, Cean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and the majority of American people, who at one point or another supported the start or continuation of this war.

Our current President, similarly to the previous President, defines it like this:

“Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.” ”The drawdown is scheduled to be completed by August 2010, decreasing troops levels from 142,000 while leaving a transitional force of 35,000 to 50,000 in Iraq until the end of 2011. The plan is to transition the mission of the remaining troops from combat operations to counter-terrorism and the training, equipping, and advising of Iraqi security forces.”

And this:

“I want Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future, and to reach the political accommodation necessary for long-term stability. That’s victory.“

So, we are still there because we have to train them until they take full responsibility. Ok. How’s the training going?

According to the following quote from wikipedia, Iraqi police was bad before the war, now it is good. Now it works for the people.

“During the Saddam Hussein regime, the Iraqi police was used as an instrument to terrorize, intimidate and incite fear into the populace, using torture, threat and murder. Today, the new Iraqi police force is tasked with protecting people from such acts. The police course curriculum includes democratic policing, human rights, first aid, police ethics, leadership and communications.”

Did you get it? “…  human rights, first aid, police ethics, leadership and communications.”  Reminds me of a huge difference between Tzar pollice and Soviet militia.

The total personnel, from the same source – “Currently there are over 340,000 Iraqi police.”  Plus there is the National Police, Border enforcement, Facilities Protection Service, 14 divisions of Iraqi Army, each division consisting of 4 brigades, Air Force, Navy.

The Iraqi Army, or as it is called sometimes now, the New Iraqi Army, is well-equipped by ten’s of billions of US dollars:

“Iraq became one of the top current purchasers of U.S. military equipment with their army trading its ”AK-47″ assault rifles for the U.S. M-16 and M-4 rifles, among other equipment. This year alone, Iraq accounts for more than $12.5 billion of the $34 billion US weapon sales to foreign countries (not including the potential F-16 fighter planes.)

That’s as far as training go. What about responsibility? Do the Iraqis take responsibility for their own future?

Well, it looks like they do.

According to YahooNews:

“Syria, Lebanon and Iraq backed Iran’s atomic programme on Saturday, which they said has “peaceful” aims.” “Hoshyar Zebari, foreign minister of former foe Iraq, said: “We reject any threat against Iran and insist on Iran’s rights to use peacefulnuclear energy.”

The main threat in the region, from Iraq’s point of view is Israel:

“Zebari said Israel must allow UN inspectors in to its nuclear facilities.”

So here’s another question to Bush, Obama, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Really, Cean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin:  Should we bring our troops home this summer as was promised by Obama or should we stay in Iraq a little longer and train their Army a little more? Are they trained enough to support Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

According to NYT, Obama will “substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons, even in self defense.” He also said that we will stop developing any new nuclear weapons.

AND he added: ““I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure.”

With this Congress and supporting media the president will be able to reduce our nuclear options. That makes preservation of all the tools a conundrum.  I know that there must be people who sincerely believe that developing and using nuclear weapons for defense is not necessary for our security.  Fine. Why then the talk of keeping our tools intact?

Probably he is saying that just to calm us down. In the same spirit as the Obamacare will increase the choice and competition, and will not add to the deficit. Or the escalations of wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan is needed to strengthen the piece. Or printing and borrowing money will not devalue the dollar and will not bring inflation.

Reminds me of an old Russian anecdote.

Journalists ask Brezhnev questions during press-conference.

“Leonid Ilyich, are you aware that the government increased the prices on precious metals?”

“Yes, but it did not affect the welfare of the Soviet People.”

“Leonid Ilyich, are you aware that the government increased the prices on cars?”

“Yes, but it did not affect the welfare of the Soviet People.”

“Leonid Ilyich, are you aware that the government increased the prices on vodka?”

“Yes, but it did not affect the welfare of the Soviet People.”

“Leonid Ilyich, are you going to increase  the prices on bread, meat, and milk?”

“Yes, but it will not affect the welfare of the Soviet People.”

“Leonid Ilyich, have you tried  DDT on them?”

]]> http://www.publicani.com/washingtondoublespeak/feed/ 0 http://www.publicani.com/obama%e2%80%99s-irs-entrapping/ http://www.publicani.com/obama%e2%80%99s-irs-entrapping/#comments Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:15:41 +0000 Zak Maymin http://www.publicani.com/?p=501 Today, I received this email from andri.manager@gmail.com:

What is incometax?
Would you consider giving me a hand or at least some advice based on your experience? Any help appreciated.
Thanks. Warmest Regards, Tim

It looked weird. One tip off that it is likely not a real person is that he signs a different name (Tim) than is on the email address (Andri), and his email address also includes an apparent title (Manager), which is odd.

So I asked a few of my friends what it could be. They told me it was an email from an IRS agent. The point is to entrap me into giving the agent provocateur advice not to pay income tax, which after a quick search I understood to be a criminal offense.

This is what I found in Google search here:

Criminal Penalties
Agents of the IRS’s Criminal Investigation Division investigate criminal federal income tax cases. The following are some of the more common tax crimes:…
Aiding and abetting: Section 7206(2) is generally used against tax preparers. This section makes it a crime for any person to willfully aid, assist in or advise the preparation or presentation of a tax return, claim or other document that is fraudulent or materially false, whether or not the person who is required to present the return or other document knows about or consents to the fraud or falsity.

Why would the IRS go after me?

I’ve written a fiction book, Publicani, that is based on the idea that the government is able to transfer intellectual ability from one person to another. It’s not a book against the income tax, but it could be interpreted as such. In various interviews such as here and here, I have indeed interpreted it that way.

Also, in this blog, I’ve written in the past some posts arguing against redistribution and the income tax, such as here and here.

With the trillions that Obama is taking from us in order to redistribute to unions and banks, is he really worried about fiction authors and bloggers changing America’s perception of whether taxes are evil? To be sure, taxes are his lifeblood: after all, Obama and other politicians produce nothing. But why fear an author? Is Obama becoming paranoid already?

Perhaps not. Perhaps he realizes the effect that good fiction can have. Look at Archipelago or Atlas Shrugged. And think of the chilling effect on future authors who would write bad things about the government. If he can silence his critics with a couple of fake, entrapping emails, from his perspective, it’s probably worth the cost.

Now, there is a small chance that there is a real person named Andri “Tim” Manager out there who would like to get help on income taxes. If so, then I feel very sorry for him, because he can’t! Poor guy. Because of all of the IRS regulations, it is impossible to even ask around for advice – everybody involved will go to jail. It is exactly like what happens to the people in Publicani who have nowhere to turn for help against the government.

And the word Publicani itself, by the way, means an IRS agent during biblical times.

Added August 11, 2009

Two things happened today that strengthened my belief that Obama administration is hiding behind this entrapment operation. First of all, I’ve got a letter from IRS, accusing me of some code violations. It never happened before because I don’t respect and don’t trust that agency, and thus I am always very conservatives in satisfying all their requirements to avoid any direct confrontations with them and to keep our disagreement on a moral and philosophical level only.

The fact that some private company may be a front for this andri.manager doesn’t mean that it’s not a government operation. With Acorn, Government Motors, Banks, Unions, Pharmaceuticals, and maby others, Obama administration proved convincingly that it does not hesitate to use, intimidate, and take over a private company. These emails ask about taxes, real estate, international travel, international communications, foreign students – all relatively narrow field, clearly of interest to IRS, Homeland Security, the bank regulators, and the like. If it were a private company, just collecting emails. why not ask arbitrary questions, about divorce, for example?

The second thing that happened today was this article published in Washington Post on Obama web-tracking plan.

There is a long-standing ban in place forbidding the government to track people on internet with “cookies” and other technologies. Obama administration is asking to end the ban. In the mean time, it goes around it by partnering with public companies (such as Google) and using their data.

People, who defend Obama in the comments, what do you think about flag@whitehouse.gov?

The facts

Obama released the Torture Memo and said that those who designed the rules for torture may face criminal charges.
It was reported most recently here, here, and here. Watch Obama talk about it here.

Counterarguments

His opponents (Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Really) argue that:

1. This is a politically motivated witch hunt.
2. Obama flipped-flopped on that decision in 24 hours.
3. Torture was supported by the congressional Democrats.
4. Torture was supported by the majority of Americans.
5. Torture produced the results and saved American lives.
6. It wasn’t torture.
7. It was perfectly legal.
8. Our enemies will use the Torture Memo as a recruiting and educational tool against America for years to come.
9. In the future, people will be afraid to give advice to the President because of the risk of criminal charges brought by the next administration.

My thoughts

1. So what if it is politically motivated? Why don’t we judge an argument on its face regardless of the motivation of the messengers? Very often the discussions of issues in the media and the blogosphere deteriorates into the pissing match on motivations of people making arguments. I’d rather listen to a true message by a bad person than to a false message by a good person.
2. I don’t care. For the topic we are discussing, it doesn’t matter.
3. Yes, and they are immune from the prosecution by our laws. They might have been wrong also, so what? If the torture is wrong, we shouldn’t prosecute the responsible officials because the people who are calling for prosecution supported the torture when it was enabled? If the torture is wrong, we should go ahead with the prosecution, regardless of how inconsistent the politicians are.
4. This is completely irrelevant. We are a republic, not a democrathy. If anything, it’s good to punish once in a while politicians who blindly follow the majority of population instead of following the law. Next time, it’ll help them to keep their heads cool when the mob insists on doing something illegal.
5. This is probably the main argument. Cheney wants Obama to release other memos proving that the torture saved lives. I don’t mind releasing all the relevant information, but the argument itself is bogus. Here’s the question to see this in the proper light: If by cutting the terrorist’s genitals, poking his eyes with a screwdriver, and breaking his knees with a hummer, we could save lives, should we do it?
   My answer is no. If your answer is yes, then we should have a completely different discussion on a completely different topic whether the end always justifies the means. And even if you are right and I am wrong, and the end does justifies the means at least on the question of torture, and if you win and I lose, than you should run the risk that I would be allowed to make my case in court against you.
6. I can hear the response to my previous point: It wasn’t a torture and it saved lives. If it wasn’t a torture then it’s ok and enough by itself even if it didn’t save a single life. If it was a torture, then it is bad even if it saved lives. So saving the life is irrelevant for our discussion.
   Now, maybe it wasn’t a torture. I think it was, and I have no doubt that from the common sense point of view it was a torture. It might have been a relatively soft kind of torture in the entire range of possible tortures developed by the people through centuries, but it is up there (cont.)
7. On the other hand, I understand that from the legal point of view, it might not be a torture. Based on the legal arguments of both sides, one thing is clear: it’s not absolutely accepted that it wasn’t a torture. So let this legal question be tested in courts where the defense and the prosecution are able to prepare and advance their best arguments. We’ll all benefit by getting better legal understanding on where the robust interrogation ends and the torture begins.
8. We can’t make our decisions based on what our enemies will say about it. It’s safe to assume that they’ll hate us regardless of what we do. I could make a point that releasing a memo like this shows American resolve in adherence to the Rule of Law to many potential terrorist recruits and may prevent them from participating in illegal activities against America, but it’s as irrelevant as the other argument.
9. I will be happy if the politicians are afraid to do something illegal regardless of how supportive for their ideas the current President or the Congress is. For example, I’ll be happy if the future administration will sue Obama’s administration for financially ruining the USA with extreme borrowing and taxing, and for the war in Afghanistan. I think it’s healthy to instill fear in the politicians for their actions. It’s healthy for the nation to know that when the politicians swear to uphold the Constitution and then act against it, their greatest risk is not just they may not be reelected. They might end up in prison.

This article was also published on OpEdNews.

“rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.“

The report comes on the footsteps of a Missouri Information Analysis Center secret guide for state troopers saying that “Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.” The center was created by the Department of Homeland Security.

I am afraid to say that Obama administration is on the path to make America a police state, the path started by Bush administration. Instead, I’ll just quote Khrushchev who discussed our situation in his famous secret speech:

“OBAMA’S … concept “RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS” … automatically made it unnecessary that the ideological errors of a man or men engaged in a controversy be proven. It made possible the use of the cruelest repression, violating all norms of DEMOCRATIC legality, against anyone who in any way disagreed with OBAMA, against those who were only suspected of hostile intent, against those who had bad reputations. The concept “RIGHT WING RADICALS” actually eliminated the possibility of any kind of ideological fight or the making of one’s views known on this or that issue, even [issues] of a practical nature. On the whole, the only proof of guilt actually used, against all norms of current legal science, was the “confession” of the accused himself. As subsequent probing has proven, “confessions” were acquired through physical pressures against the accused. This led to glaring violations of DEMOCRATIC legality and to the fact that many entirely innocent individuals — [persons] who in the past had defended the Party line — became victims.

We must assert that, in regard to those persons who in their time had opposed the Party line, there were often no sufficiently serious reasons for their physical annihilation. The formula “RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS” was specifically introduced for the purpose of physically annihilating such individuals.

It is a fact that many persons who were later annihilated as RIGHT WING RADICALS and people had worked with BUSH during his PRESIDENCY.”

“…He [OBAMA] discarded the DEMOCRATIC method of convincing and educating, he abandoned the method of ideological struggle for that of administrative violence, mass repressions and terror. He acted on an increasingly larger scale and more stubbornly through punitive organs, at the same time often violating all existing norms of morality and of AMERICAN laws.”

Krushchev even touched on our near future:

“Arbitrary behavior by one person encouraged and permitted arbitrariness in others. Mass arrests and deportations of many thousands of people, … without normal investigation created conditions of insecurity, fear and even desperation.”

There is little doubt that the U.S. is moving away from its main constitutional principle of limited federal government toward a tax/borrow/print and spend government usurping unlimited unconstrained unconstitutional powers. In the process the government destroys individual liberties unconditionally guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.

How Did They Trick Us into Accepting the Mess?

We are on the way to a totalitarian and bankrupt (financially and morally) state. How did this happen? What was the technique the government used that tricked us into compliance and acceptance of the direction toward a “Bright Socialist Future”?

After all, by and large, Americans are proud, hard-working, freedom-loving, success-appreciating, charitable individuals. How did we become government handout and favors seekers, racial, sexual, and religious whiners, who-do-you-know what-group-do-you-belong-to and not what-can-you-do people?

The Cheburashka Scheme

After thinking long and hard, I came to realize that it’s all based on a single political technique, the Cheburashka scheme. It’s not that faced with a problem the federal government develops new and advanced methods for how to cloud our minds. They use the same technique over and over again. It’s simple and powerful. And it works.

It works on you regardless of whether you are a Republican or Democrat, and it works for the government regardless of whether it is Republican or Democrat. It does not require a lot of work in selling another anti-constitutional, liberty killing, federal government expanding, money wasting government initiative. Of course, they use focus groups, polls, and speech writers to refine the technique, but they always end up with a variation of the Cheburashka scheme that a friend once told me.

Imagine a person, a young man, walking down a street in Moscow, say during the 80’s. He sees a young woman crossing his path. She slows down and opens her coat for a brief moment exposing her nakedness to the complete stranger. Then she wraps herself back up in her coat and walks away as if nothing had happened. Nobody noticed anything. The young man continues his walk when, in a couple of minutes, a man approaches him and asks: “Did you see Cheburashka?” “Yes,” replies the still somewhat confused young man. “Pay three rubles.”

So this is the scheme in its genius simplicity: provide a service that the person didn’t ask for and then present a bill.

(It is irrelevant of course that Cheburashka is a well-known Russian toy and a hero of many famous children’s cartoons, invented in 60’s by the Russian writer Eduard Uspensky. “Cheburashka” has the same relevance as Ella Fitzgerald’s chi-chi: “I can’t give you anything but chi-chi.”)

Cheburashka in the U.S.

How do politicians use the Cheburashka scheme? Here are a few examples.

“Did you see War on Terror?” “Pay.” “Did you see special programs for mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them?” “Pay.” “Farm subsidies?” “Social security?” “Drugs approval?” “Healthcare?” “Did your company receive bailouts?” “Did you get a low interest loan?” “Do you deduct your mortgage?” “Do you enjoy government-insured deposits?” “Pay, Pay, Pay!”

Like the young man on the street in Moscow, you are desperately looking around, feeling insulted, violated, yet left alone to the grace of your burglar. You realize that you are innocent but an integral part of the Cheburashka scheme: its target, its engine, and its facilitator.

So, I am not asking you to take an active position or, God forbid, resist or try to remove yourself from the scheme. No. I just want you to be aware next time when you are the target in the Cheburashka scheme.

Today, for example, the U.S. announced its intention to extend its power to seize non-bank financial companies. “… it’s a necessary thing for any government to have a broader range of tools for dealing with these kinds of things, so you can protect the economy from the kind of risks posed by institutions that get to the point where they’re systemic,” said Geithner.

A Major Rule of the Scheme

An important rule in the Cheburashka scheme is to pretend that the whole thing is routine and insignificant. Like using innocent-sounding  words (“tools”) when taking away your basic liberties.  What comes to your mind? A screwdriver? A hammer? Sickle and hammer?  Remember Bush’s: “One of the most important tools to combat terror is the Patriot Act?” You do want the country to be protected, don’t you?

Now Obama’s publicani are asking for tools. Do you want the economy protected? “Did you see Cheburashka?”

———————
Cheburashka image from here.